[Discussion] Us and the NPO

[moe]

Hello everyone, seeing as there has been some discussion in relation to this in light of the NPO's condemnation being repealed, I would like to re-open the discussion on how the shareholders of Lazarus feel.

I believe there are a few discussion points here:

1. Ending the war with the NPO
2. Repealing/leaving the APC
3. Anything we would want in exchange from them for 1/2
4. Future diplomatic relations if the first two items are passed
5. Proscription on NPO citizens

Personally, I think that since most of us agreed with abstaining on the SC vote, and with their condemnation being repealed, it makes sense that this would be a good opportunity to revisit our conflict and potentially ending the war and leaving the APC to re-establish some kind of neutral relationship with the NPO. However, I know last time this discussion was opened, a lot of citizens wished to see a delegate change as well, before anything was done. I feel though if the NPO hasn't been actively hostile recently and are looking to change their image, then we could start the discussions to end the war and leave the APC, but wait until we establish any kind of treaty or any agreement past neutrality.

 

[Chipmunker]

Ultimately I believe my support lies with ending the war with the NPO but maintaining the APC. Wars on NS are largely useless and meaningless, and the NPO has not been actively hostile towards Lazarus for some time, but they are still by no means our friends and the APC is an important part of our FA platform.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Since the discussion has started on this, these are some major threads of reference related to when war was declared and the aftermath:

• Proscription of the NPO discussion
• War with the NPO discussion
• Statement and Apology from the NPO (and discussion)
• Statement on the NPO (and discussion)

---

As for my opinion:

Firstly, I have no objection to ending the war, as continuing it seems pointless given the NPO has shown no interest in undermining Lazarus, and has made efforts to show goodwill.

Secondly, if we do end the war, given that we are implying by that act that no hostilities exist between our two regions, I would doubt that the APC treaty would exist perpetually though it seems for now most would be resistant to repealing it.

Thirdly, if and when the APC treaty is repealed, restoration of diplomatic relations would be in order with the New Pacific Order, even if embassies are not re-established.

Lastly, if we decide to end the proscription, separately from the APC treaty issue, it is reasonable to assume that Aleisyr, Pergamon, Svezjacael, Stujenske, and Feux, will likely be barred from the region by CLS vote*, though other NPO citizens can be accepted/rejected on a case by basis via normal citizenship procedures.

*The option for the CLS to revisit this would still exist, though probably best to be safe for now and discuss status of difficult nations later.

Note: I'll need time to give a more detailed response to 3, though I'd argue a Non-Aggression-Pact would be the agreement to sign with the NPO. Though the APC treaty might complicate that, and if it does a repeal of that treaty would have to occur first.

Edit: Weird. XenForo didn't put my post in correctly. Had to copy/paste from the database. Fixed my links as well.

 

[McChimp]

Perhaps this thread is dormant because we had one very similar to it not so long ago at all. There is no reason to make peace with the NPO: their Delegate was an endorsee of the NLO and every time their actions are bought up in the forums a trail of snarky, unrepentant comments from NPO senators is inevitable. The culture there has not changed.

Furthermore, there is no benefit to ending the war. Our continued state of war with the NPO has never posed a diplomatic problem.

As I have told every government that thought this was an issue that needed to be addressed, we should wait until the NPO changes its Delegate before we talk about making peace.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Hypothetically, for one and two, were we to declare peace and want something from the NPO:

• Agreement that the NPO would not intentionally spy upon or infiltrate Lazarus, with a requirement that we also be informed of any unintentional attempts they know of.
• Agreement that the NPO would keep out of the internal affairs of Lazarus, which would mean to imply not influencing our elections or inciting internal conflicts.
• Agreement that the NPO would not violate our sovereignty, inclusive of not interfering with our Delegacy or Delegacy transitions.
• If any of these are breached in the opinion of Lazarus, the peace agreement is void obviously.

 

[Frankender]

moe do you plan on reaching out to the NPO to see if any of these requests are a possibility?

If not I think this isn't going to be very productive, like the last time someone brought it up

 

[New Rogernomics]

Informally, I don't think Xoriet would be against them, but formal diplomatic contact would not be permitted unless the APC treaty is repealed.

 

[Frankender]

Informally, I don't think Xoriet would be against them, but formal diplomatic contact would not be permitted unless the APC treaty is repealed.

Then it is my opinion that we should just leave the "war" as is.

What do we have to gain from ending the war? That is all that matters.

 

[moe]

Well, personally, based off of some of the conversations I've been able to weigh in on, it seems like there isn't much of a motivation for either side. I don't think we'll immediately be allied with the NPO, but also the war/APC is pretty meaningless at this point and doesn't really serve much of an active purpose. I did think there were a few proponents for ending the war and establishing relations when this was last brought up on Discord, but I can table this until a delegacy change, if that's what we want.

Additionally, I do think NR is right about no contact, so my initial step would have been to talk to Osiris, as I believe they are also a signatory of the APC, and see what their thoughts are.

 

[moe]

I have spoken to Osiris, and they have confirmed that a large reason for them remaining in the APC is to show solidarity with us (which is much appreciated).

If we would be ok with it, they would certainly be willing to entertain the idea of leaving the APC.

 

[Constie]

If there's any peace to be had, it must be beneficial to us. Multiple intrusions upon our sovereignty cannot be forgiven with another apology. They've apologized before, after the 2015 coup, and committed the same behavior again. I am pro peace, but it must be a peace that recognizes the many transgressions against us.

 

[HEM]

Lazarus was significantly attacked and slighted by the New Pacific Order. That being said, the war has long died down and almost all meaningful changes in their regime have long ago been implemented. A lot has been accomplished in this conflict, but I would now err on the side of leaving the APC and ending the war.

In terms of what we get in exchange...I need to review what statements they have put out in the past and if any of this has been done, but I think an acknowledgment of the harm that they caused and renewed commitment to not go back down that path would be a good bonus.

 

[Debussy]

I agree with McChimp.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Generally my position hasn't changed since the war began, which was to abstain on the war. So ultimately I'll go with what the region decides.

As a separate issue, the region could repeal the APC treaty, even if it does not intend to end the war, if it feels the treaty is unnecessary or a burden should Lazarus seek formal diplomatic contact with the NPO, such as to negotiate a peace treaty and NAP some day.

Ultimately, if we do hold another vote on the war, it would act as a referendum measure of sorts and put the issue to rest. So that could be a reason to hold one, even if the region intends to stay in the war.

The issue I have seen far is that multiple PM election platforms have promised a discussion on the NPO war, with the implication it could end, then they table the discussion and there is not a vote on the issue.

It won't do well in the long-term I would think, if we keep doubting our foreign policy on the NPO every election. Either we straight out say, "this war won't stop till X" or we hold a vote.

 

[HEM]

Generally my position hasn't changed since the war began, which was to abstain on the war. So ultimately I'll go with what the region decides.

As a separate issue, the region could repeal the APC treaty, even if it does not intend to end the war, if it feels the treaty is unnecessary or a burden should Lazarus seek formal diplomatic contact with the NPO, such as to negotiate a peace treaty and NAP some day.

Ultimately, if we do hold another vote on the war, it would act as a referendum measure of sorts and put the issue to rest. So that could be a reason to hold one, even if the region intends to stay in the war.

The issue I have seen far is that multiple PM election platforms have promised a discussion on the NPO war, with the implication it could end, then they table the discussion and there is not a vote on the issue.

It won't do well in the long-term I would think, if we keep doubting our foreign policy on the NPO every election. Either we straight out say, "this war won't stop till X" or we hold a vote.

This seems like an exceptionally keen point to me. I think a vote to settle the matter for the medium/long term is a good idea.

I would add that if the majority of citizens support continuing the war – being a newer shareholder with less visceral knowledge — I will defer to that wisdom. But I would say that we should have a frank follow-up conversation about what our war-time goals are. Even if they are purely diplomatic (which they are likely to be, unless The Pacific has other non-founder holdings out there) right now I would say we are losing momentum on those as other regions look to normalize relations.

 

[moe]

Generally my position hasn't changed since the war began, which was to abstain on the war. So ultimately I'll go with what the region decides.

As a separate issue, the region could repeal the APC treaty, even if it does not intend to end the war, if it feels the treaty is unnecessary or a burden should Lazarus seek formal diplomatic contact with the NPO, such as to negotiate a peace treaty and NAP some day.

Ultimately, if we do hold another vote on the war, it would act as a referendum measure of sorts and put the issue to rest. So that could be a reason to hold one, even if the region intends to stay in the war.

The issue I have seen far is that multiple PM election platforms have promised a discussion on the NPO war, with the implication it could end, then they table the discussion and there is not a vote on the issue.

It won't do well in the long-term I would think, if we keep doubting our foreign policy on the NPO every election. Either we straight out say, "this war won't stop till X" or we hold a vote.

This seems like a good starting point.

Currently, I feel that the APC treaty is a bigger obstacle to future diplomatic negotiations than the war (which is purely based on our side alone).

I will likely move forward and call for a vote regarding the APC soon. While I don't feel super strongly about one way or the other, I think we need to force a vote to get the matter settled.

 

[Ryccia]

I am of the opinion that this war must end under favourable terms for us. Whether we reach out for peace or not, the consideration of ending this state of war must be contingent on what Lazarus gains from it. If we gain nothing from ending the conflict, as frozen and de facto symbolic as it is presently, then why do we have to peace out? I agree with Constie: should an olive branch be extended by either side, it cannot be in vain for Lazarus. Our region suffered excessively in the past for us to peace out for nothing.

In NS, "wars" do not cause actual death. Thus, peace for peace's sake is an inherently flawed goal, and not in the interests of Lazarus.

 

[moe]

It's my understanding that while the APC is in effect, we are unable to enter any kind of negotiations with NPO. We then wouldn't be able to negotiate any of the terms for ending a war, or what we should gain from an end of the war. And currently, it doesn't seem like the APC is doing much for us. I believe I would be in favor of ending the APC agreement, and keeping the war in place, since the war is much more flexible in allowing us to negotiate.

I do think that if we end the APC, there should be a very real attempt to reach out to the NPO and see where things are. If we are staunchly against any kind of peace at all with the NPO, under any conditions, for the near future, then it doesn't make sense to get rid of a piece of leverage we might hold.

The APC does seem limiting in what we can negotiate and what we can do in regards to the NPO. I think this essentially boils down to whether the citizens of Lazarus want to pursue a chance for diplomatic relations now, or whether they think that there is no point in even trying (for now).